Tuesday, July 31, 2012

HAVING A FABULOUS DAY IN RHINEBECK! Puttering around in the garden and Ace Hardware looking for nuts and bolts to fix an ailing teapot. Walked in and got a much needed colour job on my hair in a darling salon and now about to cook brocolli. So dull, so routine and yet exactly what I need after returning from the wild West.

Sunday, July 29, 2012

CHRISTIANITY TELLS people to repent and promises them forgiveness. It therefore has nothing (as far as I know) to say to people who do not know they have done anything to repent of and who do not feel that they need forgiveness.

Thursday, July 26, 2012

QE3 WILL CERTAINLY FAIL, and it will because money creation for the sake of money creation, and bond buying meant to prop up the failed ideas of yesterday will repel investors eager to avoid economies moving backwards. The good news is that Ben Bernanke probably won't survive his latest economic kill shot; the only question one of whether Obama will remove him in order to save his presidency, or whether Romney will to give his presidency a chance. RealClearMarkets.

At 9:30 a.m. on Sept. 6, 1949, a reclusive World War II combat veteran named Howard Barton Unruh ate a breakfast of Post Toasties and fried eggs, left his mother’s apartment wearing slacks and a bow tie, picked up his 9 mm Luger, and walked from shop to shop on River Road in East Camden, N.J., where he started shooting people.

Some victims were on a list Unruh had been preparing for months. Others were bystanders he’d never met, including three small boys under the ages of 10 -- one of whom was shot point-blank while sitting in a barber shop getting a haircut. By the time Unruh was apprehended, he’d murdered 13 people.

That's 13 people killed by this sick mass killer. But then the article goes on to list other such mass killings:

-- On Aug. 13, 1903, a 30-year-old veteran of the Spanish-American War named Gilbert Twigg opened fire with a .12-gauge shotgun on a crowd at an outdoor concern in the county of his birth. Twigg killed nine people in Winfield, Kan., and wounded many more before turning a revolver on himself. This bloodbath earned only five paragraphs in the New York Times.

-- In 1948, 10 months before Howard Unruh lost it, an ex-con named Melvin Collins got in a squabble with bookmaker in front of a Chester, Pa. boardinghouse, shot the man dead and then barricaded himself in his second-floor room, shooting people at random with hollow-point bullets fired from a .22 rifle. He wounded four people, and killed eight, including himself.

-- On Aug. 1, 1966, only two weeks after Richard Speck raped, tortured and murdered eight student nurses in Chicago, University of Texas student Charles Joseph Whitman killed his wife and mother, then carted a footlocker full of weapons and ammo to the university tower in Austin and began shooting. By the time the former Eagle Scout and U.S. Marine was killed by policemen, 15 other people were dead and another 30 wounded.

On Aug. 13, 1903, a 30-year-old veteran of the Spanish-American War named Gilbert Twigg opened fire with a .12-gauge shotgun on a crowd at an outdoor concern in the county of his birth. Twigg killed nine people in Winfield, Kan., and wounded many more before turning a revolver on himself. This bloodbath earned only five paragraphs in the New York Times."

What conclusions might we make from this history lesson? I can only surmise we live in a fallen world where these kinds of awful tragedies happen every now and then. Barry Rubin at PajamasMedia agrees having a realistic view: There is No Solution to Human Frailty.

Whether the Aurora tragedy is the worst in U.S. history remains to be seen. Mass communication 24/7 amplifies awareness and sense of tragedy. Still the jury is out and it seems nothing---not all the security, gun laws or surveillance in the world----will ever guarantee that this kind of terrible thing will never happen again.

Meanwhile, may God help and heal all the victims of this tragic shooting, including the perpetrator and his family.

Monday, July 23, 2012

WONDERFUL TO BE BACK in my Scots-Irish roots, fishing today with one of my favorite fishing partners. Beautiful day, but sub-par fishing. I slipped and fell in the water, jamming a couple of my fingers. Still all in all, it was a gorgeous day on the river. Great to be back in the SE. And here in the Tri-Cities area, it's at least 10 degrees cooler and 100X more moist than most far reaching areas.

Sunday, July 22, 2012

IT'S HARD TO DENY that homosexual marriage appears to be a foregone conclusion in America. This is a frightening prospect not only for those of us who understand marriage to be a testimony of the relationship between Christ and his bride, the church, but also for all who value the family and its contribution to the well-being of society and human thriving. And while it's difficult to watch a coordinated, well-funded, well-connected propaganda strategy undermine thousands of years of human history, it's especially disconcerting to witness the use of the civil rights struggle as the vehicle for the strategy.

The idea that same-sex "marriage" is the next leg in the civil rights race is ubiquitous. One of the clearest examples of the conflation of homosexual "marriage" and civil rights is Michael Gross's article in The Advocate, in which he coins the now-popular phrase "Gay is the new black."1 Gross is not alone in his conflation of the two issues, however. At a 2005 banquet, Julian Bond, former head of the NAACP, said, "Sexual disposition parallels race. I was born this way. I have no choice. I wouldn't change it if I could. Sexuality is unchangeable."2

Nor is this kind of thinking exclusive to the political left. When asked by GQ magazine if he thought homosexuality was a choice, Michael Steele, former chairman of the Republican National Committee, replied:

Oh, no. I don't think I've ever really subscribed to that view, that you can turn it on and off like a water tap. Um, you know, I think that there's a whole lot that goes into the makeup of an individual that, uh, you just can't simply say, oh, like, "Tomorrow morning I'm gonna stop being gay." It's like saying, "Tomorrow morning I'm gonna stop being black."3

Even the California Supreme Court bought in to this line of reasoning. In a February 2008 decision they reasoned:

Furthermore, in contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual's sexual orientation---like a person's race or gender---does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.4 (emphasis added)

The California Supreme Court, like Gross, would have us believe that the homosexual struggle for a redefinition of marriage puts them in the same category as my ancestors. However, they would rather you didn't take a closer look, lest you see how flimsy the comparison turns out to be.

Unidentifiable Minority

The first problem with the idea of conflating "sexual orientation" and race is the fact that homosexuality is undetectable apart from self-identification. Determining whether or not a person is black, Native American, or female usually involves no more than visual verification. However, should doubt remain, blood tests, genetics, or a quick trip up the family tree would suffice. Not so with homosexuality. There is no evidence that can confirm or deny a person's claims regarding sexual orientation.5

Moreover, the homosexual community itself has made this identification even more complicated in an effort to distance itself from those whose same-sex behavior they find undesirable. The Jerry Sandusky case is a prime example. Sandusky is accused of molesting numerous young boys during and after his tenure at Penn State. However, try placing the label "homosexual" on his activities and the backlash will be swift and unequivocal. "Pedophiles are not homosexuals!" is the consistent refrain coming from the homosexual community, media, academia, and the psychological/medical establishment.6

Hence, it seems same-sex attraction alone isn't enough to identify a person as a homosexual. And what about LUGS7 in college, or same-sex relationships in prison? Are these people homosexual? How about men who are extremely effeminate but prefer women, or those who once were practicing homosexuals but have since come out of the lifestyle (i.e., 1 Cor. 6:9-11)? In short, it's impossible to identify who is or is not a homosexual. As a result, how do we know to whom the civil rights in question should be attributed? Should a man who isn't a homosexual (assuming we could determine such a thing) but tries to enter a same-sex union be treated the same as a woman who isn't Native American but tries to claim it to win sympathy, or casino rights, or votes?

But this isn't the only problem with the civil rights angle.

Unalterable Definition

An additional problem with the "gay is the new black" argument is the complete disconnect between same-sex "marriage" and anti-miscegenation laws. First, there is a categorical disconnect. Miscegenation literally means "the interbreeding of people considered to be of different racial types." Ironically, the fact that homosexuals cannot "interbreed" shines a spotlight on the problem inherent in their logic. How can forbidding people who actually have the ability to interbreed be the same thing as acknowledging the fact that two people categorically lack that ability?8

Second, there is a definitional disconnect. The very definition of marriage eliminates the possibility of including same-sex couples. The word marriage has a long and well-recorded history; it means "the union of a man and a woman." Even in cultures that practice polygamy, the definition involves a man and several women. Therefore, while anti-miscegenation laws denied people a legitimate right, the same cannot be said concerning the denial of marriage to same-sex couples; one cannot be denied a right to something that doesn't exist.

It should be noted that the right to marry is one of the most frequently denied rights we have. People who are already married, 12-year-olds, and people who are too closely related are just a few categories of people routinely and/or categorically denied the right to marry. Hence, the charge that it is wrong to deny any person a "fundamental right" rings hollow. There has always been, and, by necessity, will always be discrimination in marriage laws.

Third, there is a historical disconnect. As early as the time of Moses, recorded history is replete with interracial marriages. In our own history, the marriage of John Rolfe and Pocahontas in the 17th century,9 along with the fact that anti-miscegenation laws were usually limited only to the intermarrying of certain "races" of people (i.e., black and white), stands as historical evidence of the legal and logical inconsistency of such laws. Thus, unlike same-sex "marriage" advocates, those fighting for the right to intermarry in the civil rights era had history on their side.

Fourth, there is a legal disconnect. One thing that seems to escape most people in this debate is the fact that homosexuals have never been denied the right to marry. They simply haven't had the right to redefine marriage. But don't take my word for it; listen to the Iowa Supreme Court in their decision in favor of same-sex "marriage": "It is true the marriage statute does not expressly prohibit gay and lesbian persons from marrying; it does, however, require that if they marry, it must be to someone of the opposite sex."

There it is: not only in black and white, but in a legal decision. Homosexuals haven't been deprived of any right. How, then, do those on the side of same-sex marriage continue to make the claim that this is a civil rights issue? The key is in the next paragraph:

[The] right of a gay or lesbian person under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with a person of the opposite sex is no right at all. Under such a law, gay or lesbian individuals cannot simultaneously fulfill their deeply felt need for a committed personal relationship, as influenced by their sexual orientation, and gain the civil status and attendant benefits granted by the statute.

I feel the need to remind the reader that this is a legal decision, since phrases like "gay or lesbian individuals cannot simultaneously fulfill their deeply felt need for a committed personal relationship" tend to sound out of place in such a document. Further, this is asinine logic. For example, following this line of reasoning, one could argue, "I have the right to join the military, but I am a pacifist. Therefore, I don't really have the right (since it would be repulsive to me). Therefore, we need to establish a pacifist branch of the military so that I can fulfill both my desire to join, and my desire not to fight."

However, this reasoning is critically important in order to make the next leap in logic. "[A] gay or lesbian person can only gain the same rights under the statute as a heterosexual person by negating the very trait that defines gay and lesbian people as a class---their sexual orientation."

Unsustainable Precedent

Perhaps the most damning aspect of the civil rights argument is logical unsustainability. If sexual orientation/identity is the basis for (1) classification as a minority group, and (2) legal grounds for the redefinition of marriage, then what's to stop the "bisexual" from fighting for the ability to marry a man and a woman simultaneously since his "orientation" is, by definition, directed toward both sexes?10 What about the member of NAMBLA whose orientation is toward young boys?11 Where do we stop, and on what basis?

Homosexual advocates are loath to answer this question. In fact, they are adept at avoiding it (and are rarely pressed on the point). However, the further legal implications of court decisions about same-sex marriage are inevitable. Nowhere is this clearer than in Lawrence v. Texas, a decision that struck down anti-sodomy laws. In the majority decision, Justice Kennedy cited his 1992 opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey:

These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.12

I have no legal training, and I recognize the limits of my ability to fully evaluate the implications of such a decision. However, I do take notice when Justice Scalia responds to this assertion by stating:

I have never heard of a law that attempted to restrict one's "right to define" certain concepts; and if the passage calls into question the government's power to regulate actions based on one's self-defined "concept of existence, etc.," it is the passage that ate the rule of law.13 (emphasis added)

Inescapable Confrontation

It is very important for those of us who oppose the idea of same-sex "marriage" to do so not because we wish to preserve our version of the American Dream, but because we view marriage as a living, breathing picture of the relationship between Christ and his church (Eph. 5:22ff), and because we know that God has designed the family in a particular way. While the design of the family promotes human thriving (Gen 1:27-28), the testimony points people to their only hope in this life and the next. As a result, silence on this issue is not an option.

Unfortunately (and quite ironically), many Christians have been bullied into silence by the mere threat of censure from the homosexual lobby. "Oppose us and you're no better than Gov. Wallace, Hitler, and those homophobes who killed Matthew Shepard!" is their not-so-subtle refrain. Consequently, we spend so much time trying to prove we're not hate-filled murderers that we fail to recognize that the Emperor has no clothes. There is no legal, logical, moral, biblical, or historical reason to support same-sex "marriage." In fact, there are myriad reasons not to support it. I've only provided a few.

Friday, July 20, 2012

Maryland young maker Jack Andraka isn’t old enough to drive yet, but he’s just pioneered a new, improved test for diagnosing pancreatic cancer that is 90% accurate, 400 times more sensitive, and 26,000 times less expensive than existing methods. Andraka had gotten interested in pancreatic cancer, and knew that early detection is a challenge. He gleaned information on the topic from his “good friend Google,” and began his research. Yes, he even got in trouble in his science class for reading articles on carbon nanotubes instead of doing his classwork. When Andraka had solidified ideas for his novel paper sensor, he wrote out his procedure, timeline, and budget, and emailed 200 professors at research institutes. He got 199 rejections and one acceptance from Johns Hopkins: “If you send out enough emails, someone’s going to say yes.” Andraka was recently awarded the grand prize at the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair for his groundbreaking discoveries. [via Fast Company]

Now I've grown tired and bored of the ever-present smoke from fires all around, summer after summer. Tired of constantly watch for grizzlies----and I've seen more than my share up close and personal.

Somehow in the past few years, my focus has reoriented back to the East---grandchildren, day hiking the AT, fishing on the South Holston. It's all closer to my precious family, dearest friends. Not to mention my Scots-Irish roots.

It's time and it's real. I'm truly thrilled for all my blessings past, present and future chapters. This weekend I'll be back in TN, first Nashville, then up to the South Holston river before going on to Washington, D.C. for several days.

Then the best is going to NYC next weekend to see my precious grandchildren baptized. God bless them and their precious parents, and all of us who support them.

Saturday, July 14, 2012

TWO SAD STORIES IN THE NEWS OF TWO YOUNG MEN----BOTH SONS OF 'FAMOUS' FATHERS---seemingly with everything to live for---retreating into their private hells and either dying isolated and alone, or being so depressed he wants to die.

Sage Stallone was found dead Friday in his bedroom surrounded by disgusting filth and prescription drugs probably days after he died and had communicated with anyone. His last days he lived as a hermit while spiralling deeper and deeper into depression. When he couldn't keep his I'm doing fine routine going, he retreated into his private darkness where the wheels of his isolated thoughts went round and round with no real intervention or resolution.

Meanwhile, the son of the Rev. Jesse Jackson, Rep.Jesse Jr., evidently has fallen into such a deep depression that he's retreated completely from the world and into his home.

I cannot tell you how sad I feel for both these devastated parents. But by the Grace of God go any of us.

Let's face it, Life Is Tough. No matter how glamorous, upbeat, involved, well planned, blessed our lives may seem, there is usually an undertone of suffering and unexpected turn of events in all of us. I would go so far as to say, it's meant to be that way. Suffering and learning to deal with it, is as mandatory in our lives as death and taxes. It's life's curriculum whether we like it or not.

This morning, I was deeply touched by Jacqueline Jackson's heartfelt disclosure about their son and the family's desperate need for understanding and prayer without ceasing:

While I've never been a fan of her race-baiting husband, Jesse Sr., I must say I admire her honesty and deeply passionate request for prayers and support.

She goes on to say this generation doesn't bounce back the way older generations do---and have had to. I believe this is true because we and our offspring especially have been born and grown up in the most prosperous time the world has even known. We and our children have all lived and matured with silver spoons in our mouths--- grown up believing the lie we can have It All easily, as a matter of course, without the hard work, blood, sweat and tears and heartache of former generations. It's called entitlement---a successful destiny is owed us no matter what.

Success and living happily ever after as a given is a myth, a bubble.

Unfortunately the bubble can burst and so many adult kids and their parents are so emotionally, fiscally, spiritually bankrupt and underwater, they have no tools to deal.
No tools that is except drugs, alcohol, false bravado, suicide and denial.

We, who have weathered a few personal tsunamis in our lives and rebuilt, need to be honest with our children and grandchildren: Life is tough and designed to grow us up. Our disappointments whether they involve relationships, money, sex, power or failed ambition aand job path always have a Higher Purpose and can push us to the end of ourselves and the beginning of God.

Letting kids fail early and often---then learn from their mistakes---is a sure way to toughen them up for future hard knocks. Conversely, parents who over-protect their progeny are setting up future weakness.

We all need to learn to deal productively with rejection, disrespect, ingratitude, heartbreak and failure. If we don't we become fragile as porcelin dolls, destined to break in a thousand pieces. We all need to get a grip on reality and live in that space rather than an endless sense of false hope and unsustainable change. Easier said than done, I know.

There are no guarantees in Life. Jesse's mother knows this and is asking for our prayer support.

I will pray for both families. But for one it is too late for their son. For the other, it may not be. Perhaps Jesse can learn to drop the sense of entitlement, grow up and join the day-to-day struggle for maturity all of us must face.

God bless both families as they deal with the very tough hands that's been dealth them.

Tuesday, July 10, 2012

YES, YES,I KNOW! NO CATCHER CAN CATCH YOUR KNUCKLEBALL AND THEY WANT TO KEEP MILLIONS of fans from turning off the tube by holding you back. So they removed you from starting pitcher to the 4th or 5th inning. Bummer.

So I'm waiting to see my hometown Nashville guy who finally made good with the N.Y Mets. R. A. I'm so proud of you and can't tell you how much I look forward to seeing you on the pitchers mound soon! Now on Fox.

I promise, it's almost more truth in one book than most people can take in a lifetime. Go take a look and read my dazzling review. I don't recommend it lightly. It's absolutely a must read life journey to real maturity for those who dare.

Monday, July 9, 2012

Nearly everything about President Obama's economic record recommends that he be replaced in November. The problem is his opponent in Mitt Romney. Not only are his attempts to out-tough Obama with regard to China economically illiterate, but they're also insulting to American workers. If people don't recognize Obama's America, they also shouldn't recognize Romney's in which skilled American workers allegedly can't keep up with their unskilled counterparts in China. Forbes.com.

TIME FOR MITT ROMNEY AND HIS ECONOMIC TEAM TO GROW UP

by John Tamny

FRIDAY'S JOBS report offered yet more confirmation that President Obama's economic program isn't working. Unemployment is a wholly unnatural phenomenon always and everywhere caused by government error, so with the jobless rate high, Obama deserves and should receive a major rebuke come November.

Economics is really so basic, and because it is, the alleged mystery behind the unemployment rate is very basic too. As consumers all, we know that when businesses are having trouble selling inventory, they reduce prices to a level that brings in buyers willing to take it off of their hands.

Considered in light of today's high unemployment, we have a great deal of labor inventory, and a major factor here is 99 weeks of unemployment benefits that make luring potential workers from the sidelines too expensive amid modern market realities. After that, whatever one's opinion of Obamacare, the latter foretells great per employee expense for companies; the law making it even more expensive for businesses to hire workers. Labor is a cost, and governmental mistakes at the moment are not allowing the cost of labor to fall to market clearing levels.

Beyond the hiring basics, the Obama administration is violating the four essential inputs to economic growth. Taxes are set to go up, meaning the costs of investing in a business, starting a business, and working for a business, are set to rise. Regulations are more and more onerous, and while they've time after time proven ineffective in rooting out mistakes or corruption, they're major burdens that detract from profit-seeking effort.

Trade is of course the purpose of our work, yet the Obama administration has shown an unwillingness to remove the barriers (a tax like any other) to exchange so essential to growth. And then most important of all, the Administration continues to pursue a weak dollar that is repelling the very investors without which there are no companies and no jobs. Investors, when they provide capital to new and existing companies, are buying future dollar income streams, but with policy heavily tilted toward dollar weakness there's greatly reduced incentive among those with funds to offer them up to new ideas.

Obama is seemingly begging voters to make him a one-term president, but what remains unknown is whether or not his competitor in Mitt Romney deserves to fill his seat. Recent comments from his campaign should at the very least give voters pause.

Indeed, it was just last week that the Obama administration made some typically foolish pronouncements about the need to get tough on China on the way to a complaint lodged with the WTO. Funny here is that trade is surely not war, instead it's a happy process whereby individuals exchange what they don't need for what they do. But rather than take Obama to task for advertising his economic ineptitude, Romney policy director Lanhee Chen told the Wall Street Journal that the Republican nominee supports Obama's actions while stressing that Obama had finessed an "election-year conversion on China", that Obama's policies wouldn't do enough to "level the trade imbalance" between the two countries, and that Obama's China stance seemingly wasn't tough enough.

The Romney campaign's China position on its face speaks to economic illiteracy, and worse, it's an insult to all Americans. Are we so pathetic now that we need to essentially pick on the little people to feel better? Are we so hopeless in the present that we're not offended when leaders essentially insult our work capabilities by saying they'll go after lesser skilled individuals in poor countries seeking to compete? If it's true as so many conservatives say, that "Obama's America" is not one they recognize, can't it also be said that "Romney's America" in which we'd use governmental force to weaken our trading partners is similarly one we wouldn't recognize? Wouldn't it at least embarrass us?

Beyond that, China's economic rise since the late '70s is easily one of the most exciting stories of modern times. Though China as a country remains very poor, that its citizens are increasingly able to taste the fruits of capitalism is beautiful, and something a pro-business candidate like Romney should trumpet. Would we prefer the China enemy of old where the country's people were being slaughtered by its cruel leadership, or would we prefer the modern China whose citizens have a direct stake in our economic health?

At first glance that's what this comes down to. Thanks to an increasingly free economy rooted in the profit motive, every day that China's vast population goes to work is yet another day that living standards for all Americans increase. This is the gift that keeps on giving. The Chinese make for us at low cost the things we want, and their doing so boosts the prospects for peace with the rising country given the massive costs that would result from invasion. As Kennedy family patriarch Joseph Kennedy told his son John, "War is bad for business." And so long as we trade heavily with the Chinese, the prospects for war are greatly reduced.

Importantly, the benefits of vibrant trade - trade greatly enhanced by a tight currency link between the two countries - with China don't end there. They don't because contrary to what you hear from most politicians and economists, the fact that the Chinese have been "taking our jobs" is yet another beautiful economic story that's revealed itself modernly.

Politicians and economists who should know better bemoan the loss of manufacturing jobs, but in truth, those "losses" explain why we're such a rich country today. That we regularly send low value work to China is what makes us so rich, and because it does, if the outflow were to reverse itself that would be a signal of looming impoverishment in the U.S.

Simply put, manufacturing is something workers in seemingly any country can do, and that's why so much manufacturing work has migrated to China's vast population of unskilled workers. Those workers, for engaging in labor that the investors who create all jobs put a very low value on, are paid the cost equivalent on a daily basis of a Starbucks' latte. Assuming an ability stateside to lure manufacturing work back to the United States, the pay for this backbreaking work would be a fraction of the minimum wage.

Figure Nike is one of the world's most important brands today not despite, but because it's never wasted precious American labor on manufacturing processes. And because Nike hires unskilled foreign workers to manufacture its goods, its U.S. based workers luxuriate at one of the nicest company campuses this writer has ever seen. Apple products are all the rage today, and Apple's profitability is a function of it retaining for American workers the high margin iPad design work, all the while sending to China low value manufacturing contracts necessary to complete the iPad.

We're once again exceedingly rich in the U.S. precisely because unskilled workers around the globe take on the labor that investors don't value, and this allows us time to toil in areas that investors do. Backwards moving economies are capital repellents, there are no jobs and no wages without capital, so the American ability to constantly migrate away from the jobs of yesterday is what makes us so prosperous. In short, if readers think we live in tough economic times today, and we do thanks to government error, they might stop to contemplate just how exponentially worse things would be if China and other countries weren't taking off of our hands low value work. Put plainly, we'd be much worse off, and because we would be, it's wise for us to cease criticizing a China the rise of which sustains our relative prosperity.

Back to the Romney campaign, its defenders would probably say he's just playing politics with all of his China bashing; that in fact he "gets it." If so, Romney's playing dumb politics, and he is because now more than ever voters need the truth over sleek candidates offering economic falsehoods. Basically, it's time for Romney's economic team to grow up, and to start treating voters like adults rather than insulting them with pledges to "get tough" on China that would ultimately bring great harm to workers in both countries.

Friday, July 6, 2012

BY NOW, WE'VE ALL READ OR HEARD ABOUT THE UTTERLY 'SCANDALOUS' letter Jane Pitt wrote to her local paper the Springfield News-Leader this week. Almost every headline I've read---except ironically on Drudge---decries her remarks as 'anti-gay.' Here's the quote from Jane's letter and a link to Business Insider piece, inaptly entitled Read the Anti-Gay Letter Brad Pitt's Mother Just Wrote Her Local Paper:

Any Christian who does not vote or writes in a name is casting a vote for Romney’s opponent, Barack Hussein Obama — a man who sat in Jeremiah Wright’s church for years, did not hold a public ceremony to mark the National Day of Prayer, and is a liberal who supports the killing of unborn babies and same-sex marriage.

That such an innocuous letter could be a source of such outcry is beyond silly, except of course for the fact that her liberal film star son Brad is wildly pro gay marriage along with his unwed baby momma Angelina Jolie. The latter being those anything goes trend setters of their brave new godless world. Or should I say, Jane's young Pitt children have become their own gods with their own morally relative creeds.....who needs the silly old Bible anyway? So uninformed and out of date.

Apparantly Jane Pitt does. And reads and studies it too. I'm sure as a believer, Jane prays daily for mercy on her children and for their eventual salvation in Jesus Christ. I'm sure she also prays for a spiritual revival in our country. She, as I do, does not equate same-sex 'unions' with one man-one-woman marriage as ordained by God. It's not because she hates anyone. It's because she believes what the Word of God teaches over and over. She fears God and the eventual judgment of those who don't return to its teachings.

From my reading of her statement above, Jane is basically endorsing Mitt Romney for president and asking people not to vote for Barack Hussein Obama for a second term because: He went to the church of Jeremiah Wright, has failed the keep the traditional national day of prayer, supports abortion---the killing of unborn children---and finally supports gay marriage.

Nothing more, nothing less. She has every right under the First Amendment to say that and to support her deepest held beliefs against abortion and gay marriage without being brow-beatend and silenced as anti-gay by the the over-reacting, screaming press. Or by her non-role model children.

So do I. So let me say it loud and clear: I second every word and sentiment Jane Pitt says and think it's terrific she wrote to her newspaper.

Since when does not being for gay marriage make someone anti-gay and homophopic? It's quite a jump. But one the left-of-center main-stream-media makes routinely, hysterically now in order to cast them as the dreaded homophobic. What a joke.

I say stay the course, dear Jane. Good for you! I'm sure Jolie's politically conservative father agrees with most everything she says. But whether Jon Voight does or doesn't have the courage to agree because of his fragile relationship with his daughter, Jane Pitt has spoken her mind and made herself a dignified part of the conversation which is much more than I can say for many of her loud-mouth, hysterical detractors in the MSM. Jane should always speak her conscience before to cowtowing to her morally degenrate son and his baby momma in a world that's fast approaching the abyss.

And may God bless her and all those who are willing to stand up for what they/we believe.

COMMENT FROM GREG COTHARN (which I also published in my comments) One of the best comments I've ever had. Thank you, Greg!

TO WIT, GREG WRITES:

The genesis, of the American left's ability to say that Mrs. Pitt is anti gay, was the group of Frankfurt School Marxists who were sheltered at Columbia University in 1933 (several of them were Jews who were fleeing Hitler). B/c Marxist theory - that the workers of the world would unite - had been proven wrong (b/c the workers were happily pursuing the free market American dream), the Frankfurt Schoolers, over some years of brainstorming, perceived that they must bring down American capitalism.

How to do it?

Their solution: attack American culture, from within, via causing Americans to lose confidence in our culture. How to do this? Political correctness, and the grievance industries (race, gender, et al). Also, for instance, the free love movement of the 1960s was originated by the Frankfurt Schoolers, in hopes that it would attack American's confidence in our cultural sexual mores. And, bringing this comment full circle, the Frankfurt School's Max Horkheimer argued that " logic is not independent of content."

In practice, this meant that an argument was logical if it helped destroy Western culture; illogical if it supported Western culture.

Horkheimer's argument has been accepted, and expanded, by modern political correct thinkers.

A person is virtuous and caring if they help destroy Western culture (via, for instance, supporting gay marriage), and a person is a hater if they support Western culture (via, for instance, opposing gay marriage). If logic is not independent from content, then virtue is not independent from content.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I do not know how to speak of the above w/o appearing as a wackadoodle conspiracy theorist. When I first happened upon the information, I thought is must be conspiracy bunk.

Yet, I was curious enough to give it a brief look.

I have enough knowledge of the 1960s to have, during my initial look, recognized that historic truth was being presented.

In the last couple of years of his life, Andrew Breitbart frequently referenced the Frankfurt School's attempt to damage America's confidence in her cultural heritage.

Currently, Bill Whittle makes reference to the same thing. The theories of the Frankfurt Schoolers are undisputed historic fact. It is just that, when you first speak of them, your audience believes you have gone round the bend. video: http://lockerz.com/d/5599523 Whittle video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhugUzUuPkE of course, I absolve you of responsibility to watch these videos - especially while you are on vacation! I am not a demanding commenter! I just put them here so that they will be here, for reference, in case you ever wish to look at them. Love from Texas.

Greg, THANK YOU SO MUCH! Let's continue from herek on the Frankfurt School.

Wednesday, July 4, 2012

WELL WORTH A READ if you're a history buff or you consider yourself a son or daughter of historical liberty---you know, the kind of liberty that says there are no rights without responsibilities and you're willing to die for that idea. Here's the link to David Forsmark's inspirational piece.

I hope we remember, the loss of personal liberty is always and forever only one generation away. That loss comes through the insiduous, comforting, deathly lie believed by more voters that government can do it better and fairer than We The People.

God help us all when we cross the line to total government dependence. We will need a whole new batch of badasses to turn the strong and deadly tide.

Monday, July 2, 2012

STAN NGUYEN WAS unhappy with the job his air conditioner repairman did on the unit at his residence, so Nguyen decided to hold the worker at gunpoint until the job was done right, sheriff's officials said this morning.

But the repairman -- unharmed -- was able to call for help at about 9 p.m. Friday, said Volusia County sheriff's spokesman Brandon Haught.

Repairman Sean Hickman had gone to Nguyen's house at the 2300 block of Statler Terrace on Friday to repair the unit, a report shows. When Hickman began explaining the unit's problem to Nguyen, the homeowner became angry and refused to pay Hickman, the report shows.

Nguyen, 54, claimed Hickman ruined the unit, the report shows.

Hickman said he attempted to give Nguyen an invoice for the work; on the 9-1-1 call made by Hickman, the repairman also told Nguyen that he would be hearing from his attorney.

At that point, Nguyen pulled out a gun and pointed it at the ground, attempting to fire the weapon, the report shows. The safety was on the weapon though and it did not fire.

But then Nguyen removed the safety and that's when Hickman took cover behind his van. Hickman called for help and said Nguyen was pointing the gun in his direction and threatening to shoot him if he tried to leave, the report says.

A few minutes before Hickman telephoned for help, Nguyen's son Stephen Nguyen, called 9-1-1, saying the repairman had "fried" the air conditioner and was refusing to leave their residence.

Nguyen was arrested and charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

About Me

I'm a southern Christian conservative with a degree in civil & environmental engineering and a passion for the truth of God's Word, writing, hiking, investing, fly fishing, cooking and the great outdoors. My favorite tech invention = spellcheck. There are no such things as rights without responsibility, a free lunch, cheap grace, man-made climate change, successful government engineering, or figuring out when life begins. We're hurling towards the abyss with only One Life-Line: it's not botox, a "living" Constitution, celebrity president, or making nice with Iran. Meanwhile, God gave us His Word, His Son, Grace Upon Grace, family/friends and the greatest country in the world to live--if we can keep it. E-mail: webutante07 at gmail dot com. Thanks for coming by.